Russian Threats!

[blueblood]

Guys, if we're in for the kills why don't just nuke the hell out of them? Level all American enemies, wait for the radiation to dissipate and then re-populate with peace-loving tribes (Jews, for example ).

But weren't we looking for Osama in Afghanistan (any luck with that?) and WMD in Iraq?

Or no, wait, we went in to remove the EVIL Taliban and EVIL Dictator Hussein and install GOOD Democracy.

Well, 2 countries down, around 150 or so more to go...

Or is it?

Funny thing is we're doing a better job over there than the Russians did. As for everyone else believing your hypocrisy, that train left the station.

[DogOnPorch]

OK...50,000 NATO troops. Roughly 5,000 of those combat troops. Even less than that in zones actually seeing combat with the Taliban. 15,000-ish US troops, either way.

It's the scope of war, I suppose.

The Rebs had 50,000 troops at Antietam; the Union over 80,000...actual combat troops. Afghanistan barely rates your average single Civil War skirmish in terms of calamity. A hundred dead wasn't uncommon in your typical exchange of close range musket fire between full regiments.

It's a nasty war...but Afghanistan ain't the end of the world...yet. It would be rated a 'Bush War' (no pun intended) during yea olde 'Pax Britannica'....t'was, wasn't it? Flashman @ Kabul et al.

The worst is still probably The Somme where over 60,000 Allied casualties were taken before Noon, July 1st, 1916. Followed closely by the Battle of Verdun and certain large battles on the East Front during WW2. The Second Battle of Kharkov, for example...rivers o' blood.

------------------------------------------------------------

Ils ne'passeront pas!!

---French Moto at Verdun

[AngusThermopyle]

The worst is still probably The Somme where over 60,000 Allied casualties were taken before Noon, July 1st, 1916. Followed closely by the Battle of Verdun and certain large battles on the East Front during WW2. The Second Battle of Kharkov, for example...rivers o' blood.

Holy! That other poster was right!

The west just does not have the resolve to take casualties in a war.

[PoliticalCitizen]

Holy! That other poster was right!

The west just does not have the resolve to take casualties in a war.

I think the real question here is: What would it take for the West (NATO or another "Coalition of the Willing") to go to war with Russia?

We have a relations freeze, threats of economic sanctions (empty so far), missle shield in Poland and military presence in Black Sea.

What's next?

[AngusThermopyle]

What's next?

Well, its just a guess but I'd say that next comes Russia making moves on some other small countries as that appears to be on the agenda. After that who knows? WW III maybe, although I really hope not.

[Army Guy]

Which doesn't anyhow negate one simple fact: no NATO army is prepared (mentally, technically, politically, etc) to sustain levels of losses anywhere near those that would result from a direct prolonged confrontation with a serious and determined opponent. For the obvious proof, look no further than Afghanistan. And, maybe, Georgia in the recent conflict (Georgia's was a NATO army; or, at least, a NATO type army; and, unlike NATO itself, it could at least make some, convoluted as it stands, claim for a cause to fight).

Which makes discussions of technical superiority an interesting, but quite irrelevant digression from the topic. NATO doesn't have a cause to fight. NATO won't fight. So the strategy it came down to is to howl from a safe distance. Which may appear effective in the own eyes, but doesn't necessarily scare anybody.

The military spends alot of time and money training and equiping it's soldiers and chain of command for just this type of situation..train for the worse case situation, and you'll be prepared for everything inbetween. Case in piont you may remember during operation Mudusa, Afgan, one of the rifle companys of the RCR was mistakenly attacked serveral times by an American A-10, the company was still in the field, with a heavy Taliban presence... The company was reduced to combat ineffectiveness in the matter of minutes, meaning they had suffered more than 55 % cas....and although it was extremily cautic they manged to treat and evac well over 1/2 thier combat numbers and keep large numbers of Taliban from taking advantage of the situation...One can not do that if your training is not there or your not prepared...

Just a side note, this company was quickly reorged, and put back into the fight, which has to speak volumes to the soldiers that accomplished this feat...but then again our history is full of these type of feats....

As for Georgia being a NATO army, is a very unfair comparison, one does not spend hundards of years under Russian rule and doctrine and then in a few short years mange to convert to a western army....it will always have a Russian flavour to it, for many years to come...

As for the statement NATO won't fight, it is fighting, tking on more and more roles as the UN becomes ineffective, or powerless, are they roles that NATO should be involved with, absolutly not, but that is where we are today. Howl from a distance, better to howl than to commit thousands of troops in conflicts we may not walk away from, be careful of what you wish for....As for scaring anybody, large parts of NATO sure scared the crap out of Sadam, not once but twice......Even Russia knows the strength of NATO,

[Jerry J. Fortin]

NATO is a very basic organization, it is not the UN. It is military not social.

The problems we now face fall outside of NATO. The problems we now face are about the UN.

[myata]

... large parts of NATO sure scared the crap out of Sadam, not once but twice......

True, that fact cannot be denied. But haven't we been talking about a serious opponent, having both the ability and cause to fight? The only recent instances I could think of, would be 1) Vietnam; 2) Afghanistan.

[PoliticalCitizen]

As for the statement NATO won't fight, it is fighting, tking on more and more roles as the UN becomes ineffective, or powerless, are they roles that NATO should be involved with, absolutly not, but that is where we are today. Howl from a distance, better to howl than to commit thousands of troops in conflicts we may not walk away from, be careful of what you wish for....As for scaring anybody, large parts of NATO sure scared the crap out of Sadam, not once but twice......Even Russia knows the strength of NATO,

That exactly is the problem: NATO or a so-called "Coalition of the Willing" (Georgia was there too, I'm sure because of humanitarian reasons) led by US defies UN time after time, thus not only showing to the whole world UN's powerlessness and uselessness but also brazenly proclaiming itself the only real power in the world that nobody can challenge and that doesn't care about the opinions of the countries that can't challenge it.

Yes, Russia knows the strength of NATO. But it also knows that without showing its own military might (at least in the region) it will not be heard or respected, but dismissed like so many (if not all) other countries.

I would expect China to be the next one to act... They have their own "Chechnya" - Tibet, they have their ambitions in the region - Taiwan, maybe more... I'm sure they're as sick of having a single center of gravity in the world as Russia is and would also like to become one... And they have a lot more economical leverage over US than Russia can hope to have.

[Army Guy]

Yes, Russia knows the strength of NATO. But it also knows that without showing its own military might (at least in the region) it will not be heard or respected, but dismissed like so many (if not all) other countries.

Yes but to be a global superpower you must be able to project your military strength globally....Russia or China can not do that. Which is why they are not really taken seriously, there're threats are kind of hallow so to speak....I'd say they are listened to by NATO and the US , but not to the level they (russians, or china) are demanding...

[myata]

Well, I'm sure Russia will be taken more seriously now. Maybe if it didn't act, any local baron could presume that they can do whatever they like. And I'm not sure who isn't taking China seriously.

One the other hand, we have NATO with their 00,000 troops, and US, with their 00,000 troops firmly grouned in the places like Iraq and Afghanistan. It appears, that you call "taking seriously" really depends on the point of view.

On the other hand, if one'd speak strictly about results as the basis for "taking seriously", Russia got what it wanted in Ossetia, etc - invading force out, guarantees of no use of force given, and so on.

Which can in no way be said about West's objectives in the same Afghanistan and Iraq.

[GostHacked]

Yes but to be a global superpower you must be able to project your military strength globally....Russia or China can not do that. Which is why they are not really taken seriously, there're threats are kind of hallow so to speak....I'd say they are listened to by NATO and the US , but not to the level they (russians, or china) are demanding...

I would say you are wrong. Russia and China have large militaries. They have been doing exercises together for years. Russian bombers are now in Venezuela and Cuba.

China is currently ramping up their navy, something they have been doing for years.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story...5013871,00.html

Earlier this year, the Chinese navy had at least 55 submarines, eight of which were nuclear-powered. Many were equipped with Yingji-8 anti-ship cruise missiles that can be launched from under water. It is believed there are a further 13 nuclear submarines in the planning stages. China announced in March it would lift its military budget this year by a record 19.4per cent to $63 billion, but Washington believes its actual spending is much higher.

http://en.rian.ru/world/20070727/69828953.html

Just because they have not projected their power (I would argue they have been doing just that, like the US, but we never hear about it.) does not mean they cannot or not willing to.

Russia is showing they can now. Projection does not necessarily mean invasion.

[Army Guy]

I would say you are wrong. Russia and China have large militaries. They have been doing exercises together for years. Russian bombers are now in Venezuela and Cuba.

China is currently ramping up their navy, something they have been doing for years.

Don't get me wrong, the are still very powerful nations, just they do not come close to the power that NATO or the US can project...I guess i should have been more specfic, Yes both Russia and China does have limited abilities to project power, Russia used to have a massive ability to project power. which would include the ability to land marines in large numbers, or Aircraft carrier battle groups, massive amounts of Airbourne soldiers with aircraft to get them there....and large follow-up forces and the means to get them there....The US on the other hand can land several divsions of marines, Airbourne troops plus they have the navy to secure the waterways and the Aircraft carriers to protect the entire force, for as long as it takes....Russia and china lack that capibilty....and that was what i meant to project power any where in the world...

So over all having a few Russian bombers in South America is not a large threat, and would be easily swept away by US defenses....but park serveral US naval aircraft carriers battle groups off the russian coast and see what kind of reaction you get....

[PoliticalCitizen]

Don't get me wrong, the are still very powerful nations, just they do not come close to the power that NATO or the US can project...I guess i should have been more specfic, Yes both Russia and China does have limited abilities to project power, Russia used to have a massive ability to project power. which would include the ability to land marines in large numbers, or Aircraft carrier battle groups, massive amounts of Airbourne soldiers with aircraft to get them there....and large follow-up forces and the means to get them there....The US on the other hand can land several divsions of marines, Airbourne troops plus they have the navy to secure the waterways and the Aircraft carriers to protect the entire force, for as long as it takes....Russia and china lack that capibilty....and that was what i meant to project power any where in the world...

So over all having a few Russian bombers in South America is not a large threat, and would be easily swept away by US defenses....but park serveral US naval aircraft carriers battle groups off the russian coast and see what kind of reaction you get....

I agree in principle.

Historically Russia was never the "Agressor" (with the exception of territories immediately outside of its borders) and always the "Defender".

That explains why there are no Russian colonies anywhere in the world. If antagonized for a long time, however, Russia may find both means to project its power and countries willing to join them in that endeavor. I would suspect that projection, as in the past, would be aimed directly and only at the USA.

China is just learning to be the "Superpower" - they have a lot to learn. Copying Russian technology can make them #3 at best... If only they could get their hands on an American-made carrier or F-22...

[jbg]

I agree in principle.

Historically Russia was never the "Agressor" (with the exception of territories immediately outside of its borders) and always the "Defender".

Bertlin is on the former USSR's borders how?

That explains why there are no Russian colonies anywhere in the world.

Until it needed the money, Alaska was one. And its first, second and third-tier satellites, including Cuba?

[PoliticalCitizen]

Bertlin is on the former USSR's borders how?

You mean Berlin, as in the capital of Germany? Retaliation for agression.

Until it needed the money, Alaska was one. And its first, second and third-tier satellites, including Cuba?

Alaska was a natural expansion of the Russian Empire to the East, not a colony in a far-away part of the world.

[myata]

Don't get me wrong, the are still very powerful nations, just they do not come close to the power that NATO or the US can project...

And again, looking at facts, rather than dwelling on dreams, could result in a quite different view.

Last time US projected its massive military power, was in Vietnam. It's still projecting it in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In WWII, it had to resort to using WMD against civilan population to achieve a victory.

BTW interesting that you mentioned almost exclusively offensive capabilites. Bother to explain, how does that line up with the ostensibly purely defensive mission of the allegiance? No, eh? What you hear isn't what you get.

But isn't it so telling that in your view, to be "taken seriously" one needs to have a huge army capable to deploy and invade any place in the world on a flick. How new, for the 21 century.

Edited September 12, 2008 by myata

[AngusThermopyle]

Last time US projected its massive military power, was in Vietnam.

Sorry I don't have time to answe your entire post so we'll just look at this for now.

You are 100% incorrect in the statement you posted. Every time a Carrier group sails anywhere the US is projecting its power. Projecting power should not be confused with fighting a war.

[DogOnPorch]

And again, looking at facts, rather than dwelling on dreams, could result in a quite different view.

Last time US projected its massive military power, was in Vietnam. It's still projecting it in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In WWII, it had to resort to using WMD against civilan population to achieve a victory.

BTW interesting that you mentioned almost exclusively offensive capabilites. Bother to explain, how does that line up with the ostensibly purely defensive mission of the allegiance? No, eh? What you hear isn't what you get.

But isn't it so telling that in your view, to be "taken seriously" one needs to have a huge army capable to deploy and invade any place in the world on a flick. How new, for the 21 century.

Good grief...lol. Peaceful ol' Japan...they were just 'doing their thing' when the US came along and started killing civilians. Barbarians.

------------------------------------------------

Hippies.They're everywhere. They wanna save the Earth, but all they do is smoke pot and smell bad.

---Eric Cartman: South Park

[Sulaco]

Large military - bahahaha.

Nato ships are currently sitting in a port in the Black Sea. They move through the sea with impunity. Russia sends a few frigates for a military exercise in the Carribean. With everyone knowing if war came those frigates would not get out of the mediterrenean. Superpower status is not based on the size of your army. It's force projection baby.

What have the Russians accomplished with the invasion of Georgia - they showed they have a large enough army to ebat up on small republics. They have also put into sharp contrast for any third world tin pot dictator more rational than Assad that when it comes to getting troops "over there" their capability pales in comparison with that of the czech component of Nato.

This is the undercurrent that few of the hoi poloi lauding Russia will catch - but Nato ships in Poti are a clear message to everyone else. And far more intimidating than shitty Russkie tanks rolling over shittier ex-Russkie tanks.

Edited September 12, 2008 by Sulaco

[Army Guy]

Historically Russia was never the "Agressor" (with the exception of territories immediately outside of its borders) and always the "Defender".

Historically how would mother Russia explain poland during the Second world war, or for that matter the Czechs conquest, i know they were on the fringes of russia, and needed to be secured for Russia's safety...And while the Soviets did not claim any sat for themselfs they did enjoy spreading communism, around the globe.

Russia may find both means to project its power and countries willing to join them in that endeavor. I would suspect that projection, as in the past, would be aimed directly and only at the USA.

I think Russia misses that world super power feeling and with it's new found wealth will be developing it's military once more...but that is going to take years to complete...until then it will have to be content to occasional get slapped around on the polictical map by the US...as for finding anyone else to partner up, it may be possiable in certain areas of the world such as tawain a russia /China operation but in most other areas thier is no one equal to the US ability to power project, not individually or combined...Russia is not looking for a partner, it's looking at the whole pie for itself...

[Sulaco]

Historically how would mother Russia explain poland during the Second world war, or for that matter the Czechs conquest, i know they were on the fringes of russia, and needed to be secured for Russia's safety...And while the Soviets did not claim any sat for themselfs they did enjoy spreading communism, around the globe.

I think Russia misses that world super power feeling and with it's new found wealth will be developing it's military once more...but that is going to take years to complete...until then it will have to be content to occasional get slapped around on the polictical map by the US...as for finding anyone else to partner up, it may be possiable in certain areas of the world such as tawain a russia /China operation but in most other areas thier is no one equal to the US ability to power project, not individually or combined...Russia is not looking for a partner, it's looking at the whole pie for itself...

Oy vey - why nitpick? Where the hell does the Russian Federation come from but constant conquest. And of course the Soviet Union took a whole lot of "re-conquest" to build. Unless you're russians, in which case you were just liberating all the little russians and chornozhopi asiatics from western oppression. Purely defensive.

[Army Guy]

And again, looking at facts, rather than dwelling on dreams, could result in a quite different view.

yes lets look at facts, and when you compare the size of militarys along with the equipment they pocess, and it's capabilities....you'll quickly find that there is no one on the world stage can come close to the US military machine...

Last time US projected its massive military power, was in Vietnam. It's still projecting it in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Iraq and Afgan is a walk in the park, and while yes it is a small form of projecting power, don't let it fool you the US military machine is very much able to project 3 to 4 times that amount on very short notice....

In WWII, it had to resort to using WMD against civilan population to achieve a victory.

I think you should re read those history books, the US was well on it's way to pushing the Japanese back, japanese navy was all but broken, it's airforce was in effective, and it's army was not capable of offensive operations on a large scale....The use of WMD was a polictical decision meant to actually save US military lives...by forcing the Japanese into a quick surrender....The taking of each of the occupied islands was a costly endevor, and was chewing up alot of US military pers due to the fact the Japanese were not ready to surrender, and perfered to fight to the last man.... So it was not a matter of being forced to resort to using WMD, but rather a way of saving lives....

BTW interesting that you mentioned almost exclusively offensive capabilites. Bother to explain, how does that line up with the ostensibly purely defensive mission of the allegiance? No, eh? What you hear isn't what you get.

Any wpn sys can be used both offensivily and defensivily, Aircraft carriers where used defensivily in the pacific threater...as well as offensiveily such as the attack on pearl Harbor...NATO was concieved to counter Russia expansionism, and the spread of communism....very effectivily i might add, as we don't have to line up for hours for bread, vegs, toilet paper, and all the rest of our comodities....at that time the Russia military machine had well over 300 divsions in uniform, a division is made up of any where from 18 to 25,000 troops do the math ....on both east and west borders,you see they don't get along with China either....and defending Europe was NATO with it's 30 divisions, relying on troops and equipment sent from across the atlantic....mostly US, some British, etc....anyways one can not afford to have to many offensive operations when your out numbered 10 to one....Over time Russia has let these capibilties erode....and that has left the US in sole ownership of the bigest guy on the block with the most toys...

But isn't it so telling that in your view, to be "taken seriously" one needs to have a huge army capable to deploy and invade any place in the world on a flick. How new, for the 21 century.

It's not new, it's been that way since man first learned how to pick up a stick and beat someone with it....Let me ask you this lets take one of Canada's worldly good deeds, like the ban on land mines....do you think that the results may of been different if say the US championed it....Why ?

Like or not having a massive military does get you a seat at the table...and when Nations start throwing thier wieght around, the biggest army normally wins....I'm sure the Rwanda thing could have been solved if the US had parked serveral A/C carriers of the coast and said stop or i'll start bombing....it is what other nations notice, it is what most men understand....

[White Doors]

good to see that you are ok AG

[myata]

yes lets look at facts, and when you compare the size of militarys along with the equipment they pocess, and it's capabilities....you'll quickly find that there is no one on the world stage can come close to the US military machine...

We seem to be looking at different sets of facts: you: the size and tech specs of machine; I: the results it actually achieves.

That may explain the differences in interpretation.

Iraq and Afgan is a walk in the park,

Really? When why are we still there, after what seems to be longer than WWII?

....Over time Russia has let these capibilties erode....and that has left the US in sole ownership of the bigest guy on the block with the most toys...

And it's been nearly two decades since they've done it. While US is still holding on to its stick - and using it, on occasion. Giving a nice lesson to everybody, that despite all the peaceful claims, the size of the stick (so to say) is that matters. Who's to blame that some pupils just learn so fast these days?

It's not new, it's been that way since man first learned how to pick up a stick and beat someone with it....

You got it. The stick isn't going away. And that's just too bad. Because we all know that peace and order exists where people consciously avoid violence and use justice (impartial and independent) to resolve their differences. Not where everybody uses a stick to prove their point.